JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Part of an OFF alert, I agree that this may not be a bad thing, less federal involvement the better.

(But there are other considerations.

As you know, OFF worked hard to get Oregon to recognize other state's permits this past session. We do not believe that an American should have to ask permission to exercise a right, but as long as the permit system is alive (against our wishes) we will work to allow your license to be valid in other states, and other states' permits to be valid here.

Still, we are not sure that this proposed amendment was the best way to go about this.

Most gun owners wonder why a driver's license is good anywhere in the country but a CHL is not.

That's a good question. But keep in mind, driver's licenses were always the domain of the states. Now, the FEDs have moved in to use them as a back-door national id card.

If the states do not comply with Federal mandates on driver's licenses. they will not be acceptable ID for boarding planes or entering Federal buildings. The long and belligerent arm of the Federal Government has stepped in on driver's licenses. What happens when they do the same on CHL's?



While I understand the distrust of the Federal "Gooberment" in the handling of PRIVATE information and its potential for nefarious uses, the "Real I.D. Act" simply mandates that the individual States MUST ensure that when they issue an OFFICAL piece of I.D. to a person, that they PROVE that person is who they say they are via acceptable standards.... otherwise what's the point of I.D.? I agree with the reasons for the RIDA... we have too many "hard working, honest" illegal aliens running around with bogus Oregon I.D., who should NOT be in possession of ANY goverment issued documents with the exception of their deportation papers!!

A CHL would be no more of a "big brother" back door than your Social Security Number that you've (most of you anyway) had for most (if not all) of your life (I didn't get my SSN until I was 14 in 1981 because I wanted to get a PT job, but they have been issed at birth for about 20 years, or so.)... BELIEVE ME, that SSN opens more doors to your private information than you can shake a stick at... a CHL would pale in comparison!!
 
While I understand the distrust of the Federal "Gooberment" in the handling of PRIVATE information and its potential for nefarious uses, the "Real I.D. Act" simply mandates that the individual States MUST ensure that when they issue an OFFICAL piece of I.D. to a person, that they PROVE that person is who they say they are via acceptable standards.... otherwise what's the point of I.D.? I agree with the reasons for the RIDA... we have too many "hard working, honest" illegal aliens running around with bogus Oregon I.D., who should NOT be in possession of ANY goverment issued documents with the exception of their deportation papers!!
The problem I have with this is that Oregon, back in the day (1972), required my birth certificate to get my DL. They issued my ODL and it has served as my ID ever since. I have no idea where my original BC went, and would have to contact the state, at my expense, time etc. to get another one.
Now Teddy K. comes along a few years back and starts issuing ODLs to illegals. And now everyone's ID is no longer reliable?!? WTF is up w/that?!? The same certificate that did it before will do it again. What's the point?!? At 50+ years of age, with 37 years of state documented history, I have to produce a birth certificate. B*LLSH*T!
So is the state going to send everyone a copy of their BC for free? NOPE!
Teddy K. made our licenses invalid for REAL I.D., he should pay for it!

Rant over, carry on.
 
I actually called Merkley's office this moroning(though that's a spelling error it may be more accurate when our Senators are involved).....you ought to hear his press release......."blah, blah, we don't want the States to be subject to Federal regulation in something that should be the State's business, don't want other States with lower restrictions to allow concealed carry holders in Oregon........blah, blah"......I asked the press release be read to me by the nice guy in the Portland Office that answered. The interesting thing is when I asked the guy if he was aware that the requirements for CHL holder in Oregon were some of the lowest in the States, and that this was a benefit to Oregon, it seemed like a revelation. Wasn't Merkley a State Senator or Representative first? He should know this.

Merkley is simply a tool of the Democratic leadership. He as no opinions of his own and he is completely clueless when it comes to 2nd Amendment issues.
 
Mike, I agree he is a "tool", but I beg to differ... Merkley is NOT clueless on the 2A and I believe he knows EXACLTY what he is doing... trying to tear down the 2A in any way he can.

I honestly don't give him that much credit. Certainly that's what his actions, policies, and votes do, but I don't see any true leadership or administrative skill in him. He's the toadie serving greater masters - and those greater masters are the ones with the agenda. He's just along for the ride and what fleeting power and influence that brings him.
 
This vote was, in part, a vote about states' rights and against a federal mandate that would have imposed something on the states from Washington.

Do you really want the federal government telling us we MUST comply with New York firearms legislation? Really? Remember this: If that principle applies here, it would be hard to oppose when it becomes a call for national recognition of firearm restrictions.

What's funny is that the Rs are now in favor of imposing national solutions by the federal government, and the Ds are arguing, "Let the states decide for themselves."
 
Its not a hard jump from supporting FEDERALl ASSERTIONS supporting 2A RIGHTS throughout the States (that's their job) over to opposing FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS on 2A RIGHTS (NOT their job), and NY regulations would only apply while in NY... nobody goes there anyway, its too crowded!! ;) :D
 
So if Vermont said convicted rapists, murderers, 9/11 terrorists, and the criminally insane were entitled to concealed carry permits, and Oregon thought that was wrong, it would be OK for the federal government to cram that Vermont permit down Oregon's throat, with no ability of Oregon to say no?

What if the feds said Oregon had to respect Vermont's restrictions on CHL permits. OK with that too?

Oregon is a sovereign state. You may favor federal hegemony, but I do not.
 
That's not a valid argument because Vermont does not have any such directive(s) and no "reasonably sane" state has such a ridiculous stance... even NY and MA... ;) Besides, people of such caliber as you have stated have already (by their actions) surrendered their 2A right to even be in possession of a firearm let alone have a CHL, assuming you meant CONVICTED offenders of course. Furthermore, should such a preposterous standard exists, the other States would NOT be obligated to honor that particular State's CHL, BECAUSE that person would not be legally able to be in possession of a firearm.



Here is my counter argument to your last statement:

Back in the pre-civil war days some States made in legal to own slaves, and in more modern times some states made segregation (Jim Crow Laws) legal based on skin color... ultimately the Federal Government put the smack down on that because it was violating certain citizen's Constitutional rights... you want to call that a hegemony too?

For the Federal government to IMPOSE upon the States that they observe and respect EVERY citizen's Constitutional rights (and I mean EVERY ONE of them) regardless of some local "schumck in charge's" flippin' opinion (in this case concerning the 2A) is the very purpose of the Federal Government... where it becomes a "hegemony" is when the Federal Government starts to trespass AGAINST our Constitutional rights... and that my friend becomes tyranny. ;)
 
So if Vermont said convicted rapists, murderers, 9/11 terrorists, and the criminally insane were entitled to concealed carry permits, and Oregon thought that was wrong, it would be OK for the federal government to cram that Vermont permit down Oregon's throat, with no ability of Oregon to say no?

What if the feds said Oregon had to respect Vermont's restrictions on CHL permits. OK with that too?

Oregon is a sovereign state. You may favor federal hegemony, but I do not.

+1.

Sorry guys, but in this case I'm going with State's rights.

Utah may decide it's OK for felons to own and carry... I have no ability to effect the election of Utah politicians. I will not have people I didn't have a chance ot vote for effecting me, either way. I will not depend on the "sanity of all 49 other states".

This may be a pain in the rear in this case, but states rights end up helping us in the long term. I'm not willing to give them up. Choose your issue and 9/10 we want state's rights to prevail.
 
+1.

Sorry guys, but in this case I'm going with State's rights.

Utah may decide it's OK for felons to own and carry... I have no ability to effect the election of Utah politicians. I will not have people I didn't have a chance ot vote for effecting me, either way. I will not depend on the "sanity of all 49 other states".

This may be a pain in the rear in this case, but states rights end up helping us in the long term. I'm not willing to give them up. Choose your issue and 9/10 we want state's rights to prevail.


... and Utah may not revoke a person's driver's license for habitually operating a vehicle in an extremely hazardous manner, then that jerk could drive around on our streets and endanger everyone here too... which is more likely to happen.. in addition to winning the lottery and getting struck by lightning seven consecutive times within 30'. :D
 
The fact is the 2nd amendment isn't a state right it is the constitutional right of every qualifying American citizen. As Stomper said the federal government is obligated to honor this right, they are not, under the constitution, empowered to take it away though, and that point is where some are misunderstanding the states right argument.

We are being led astray with this States right vs Federal argument and missing the point and purpose of reciprocity.

Remember national reciprocity legislation can only come from Congress.
 
The fact is the 2nd amendment isn't a state right it is a national right of every qualifying American citizen. As Stomper said the federal government is obligated to honor this right, they are not, under the constitution, empowered to take it away thought, and that point is where some are misunderstanding the states right argument.

Well, then argue for a national CHL. As long as other states can decide who carries without my ability to vote them out of office, it's a state right.

I totally agree that there should be a national CHL with national requirements. That would fit 2A. Forcing me to recognize what some other state decides on a bad day is state's rights, regardless of the issue.

You are making a constitutional argument, but I am not. I am making a process argument. Our federal government has a history of f&*(ing up process to someone else's advantage.
 
Well, then argue for a national CHL. As long as other states can decide who carries without my ability to vote them out of office, it's a state right.

I totally agree that there should be a national CHL with national requirements. That would fit 2A. Forcing me to recognize what some other state decides on a bad day is state's rights, regardless of the issue.

It's a good idea and would solve the min requirements problem. I'm sure that the same people claiming states rights problems would still claim states rights problems.

You are making a constitutional argument, but I am not. I am making a process argument. Our federal government has a history of f&*(ing up process to someone else's advantage.

I couldn't agree more, and I will never willingly give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to doing the right thing by us.
 
The drivers license analogies here got me thinking back, 15 years ago truck drivers were all issued different licenses by different states with different qualifications then the government stepped in and said that after a certain date all licenses will be invalid and that you will need to meet a new standardized minimum requirement to receive the new license.

I'm not endorsing this at this time but it is a good analogy for the states rights supporters to look to as how this would work and how it took nothing from the states nor did it diminish anything.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top